Goatboy wrote:A guy is in a bad neighborhood. He's standing outside a gas station alone. He has a somewhat thick coat on for the middle of July, and he has been there for a while. The cop decides that, under the circumstances, the guy is probably up to no good, and he decides to stop and search him.

Jay and Silent Bob come to mind immediately xD.

It's a real problem though. Police do, no doubt, find and stop criminals via these random searches, but at the same time, they're fundamentally wrong, a great deal rests on the personality of the cop as well, they're not all pigs out to strip you of every last shred of pride you have (Though, they tend to be portrayed that way on the 'net).

If I was personally stopped, I think I'd try very hard not to give him a reason to want to search in the first place, standing up for your rights if he does ask brings a potentially sticky situation.

It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votesinsomaniacal.blog.com

Very valid points. I was just pointing out that cops don't always need a reason to stop you. I definitely agree with the "not all cops are pigs" statement. People with that view are, in my mind, a bit backwards. ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) is just as bad as AHAB.

Indeed. Too many people dismiss Police as non-human. If you read any old Anarchist website that claims to teach you how to deal with cops, they'll advise you to give robotic "Officer, Im not resisting, I am no consenting to a vehicle search" responses. Although maybe these are good from a legal standpoint, the cops are humans. This won't do anything but piss them off. A "good" cop, will be annoyed and just ignore you, give you your ticket, and drive off. A "bad" cop, could do much worse.

A better method would be politely acknowledging or asking why you were pulled over, and cooperating. If he asks you if he could search the car, ask him to explain why, and then refuse. If you build up that short-lived, but important "good" relationship with him, he's less likely to be annoyed when you refuse, and more likely to understand your motives. He'd probably hate to have some dude looking through his car just the same.

It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votesinsomaniacal.blog.com

Goatboy's big jacket guy scenario only works in certain cases. Your average cop wouldn't be able to. Narcotics division police officers would be able to say it was a dead give away and that they are trained for such. Regular cops can't say that. Same with asking to search because someone is walking like there is a gun in their pocket. The cop would need to be trained to spot these things will a reasonable low doubt. Those are the only situations those would fly.

The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty; it's merely twice as big as it needs to be.

hellow533 wrote:GL with all your international communications getting intercepted. Probably so terrorists can't do that terrorist thing that terrorists do. Like terrorizing, for example.

The quote was hilarious. I laughed

In later news, Room 641A sounds like something out of Stephen King or a secluded military laboratory. Never the less, both articles were quite interesting. They were most definitely rightfully sewed for having data mined individuals,to probably later on, warehouse all this data with no justification.

Bottom line, its an invasion of personal privacy. The odd thing is, the case was taken to appeals court and later reinstated in 2011. Yet they don't clarify what the verdict or judgement was. Which is a shame because I can't see how a company can completely breach their clients right to privacy and yet no hard line penalties are handed down as a result.